5 ms·

We all understand what is being discussed here. We don't need to argue semantics over what it means to obtain something you didn't pay for (but should have). I

by TheCapn 14y ago

We all understand what is being discussed here. We don't need to argue semantics over what it means to obtain something you didn't pay for (but should have). It seems that the tech community stands adamantly behind the "copyright infringement isn't theft" mantra but in reality the moral crime is taking something you weren't entitled to. Our actions don't really seem to consider the state of the original product making the difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement" because it is not concerning to us. For the developer/distributor/publisher/artist or whomever is expecting a cut from sales the result is the same: they lost a part of their wage. Admittedly I've done my share of piracy but now that I spend a good chunk of my free time releasing software or writing code I have stopped; it feels kind of shitty to see something taken without any regard for your hardships. Hell, as a result I even go out of my way to make sure developers are paid their dues by purchasing almost any app I use. If I come to expect others to pay/donate for my effort it is quite hypocritical to not do the same as a consumer.

IgorPartola 14y ago
I do not advocate piracy, and do believe that people should be paid for their work. However, you are wrong. Theft means that the original owner no longer has the item stolen from them. Copying something from them most definitely leaves them with the original. That is one way in which piracy is not like theft. I would much rather someone download a copy of my code, than grab all my drives, make a copy, erase them, then return the drives. What you said is "theft is wrong" && "piracy is wrong" => "Piracy must be theft". The trouble is, you cannot apply the same concepts to physical and digital world. Once again, not arguing that pirating software or other content is good, just that it is not theft. Secondly, and this is a point that I don't think is discussed much, piracy to me is an effect of market value. For example big music labels will argue that if I distribute a Britney Spears MP3 on a file sharing network, that they lose $0.99 * # of potential buyers. This is false. The market value of this piece of content is much lower. People would not pay for it if the only way to get it was through, say, iTunes. Basically, someone might want it for free, might consider if for cheap ($0.10/song), but not want it for the price set by the market.
- cavilling_elite 14y ago
  The problem is the price is not set by the market, it is set by the record label and significant arm twisting. Support your favorite bands by sending them cheques if you obtain their album. The RIAA is the problem. Also check out Band Camp for new unsigned artists. Great service and IMHO the future of the "record" industry.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Band Camp is great! I don't care enough about music per se to use it for its intended purpose, but I do get pointed from time to time to some groups who remix video game music. There's some pretty talented musicians on there even in esoteric genres.
  - IgorPartola 14y ago
    Honest question: how would you set the market value of a digital good? I have a very limited understanding of economics, but it seems to be that balancing the supply/demand equations when supply is infinite (for, say, a song, movie, music video, etc.) becomes rather difficult.
    - tjr 14y ago
      How would you set the market value of a physical copy of a digital good? Music CDs are sold for roughly $10-$20 USD. The actual cost of making the physical CD is around $1. People seem much more agreeable to accept a $9-$19 markup on a physical CD than on a digital album, which costs $0 to copy but ostensibly has the same cost to produce otherwise.
      - IgorPartola 14y ago
        Well, if there is scarcity (i.e.: supply is somehow limited), then the market value is where supply and demand curves cross. In other words, I'd throw a bunch of CD's into the market and let the price stabilize. That has nothing to do with how much it cost me to make it (the same way that the salary a doctor makes has nothing to do with how expensive the education was), but everything to do with opportunity cost: would I rather buy this CD or another. At least for spherical songs in vacuum. I cannot do the same thing with digital goods since the supply is unlimited. I don't see how the market can settle using the old supply/demand paradigm. I can try to get a stable price by offering a "pay what you think it's worth" model, but that' no fun either.
Zigurd 14y ago
Copyright infringement is very different from theft. First, if you copy one of my books, say from someone who bought it in pdf format from the O'Reilly site, you have not denied the owner access to his paid copy. You have not robbed anyone of a physical artifact with a measurable cost. Second, such as act doesn't even rise to the status of "theft of service." It isn't like sneaking into another movie theater after watching the show you paid for. You are not taking up a physical seat. At most you have committed a tort. The problem is these tiny torts have been criminalized. But that doesn't make them any more significant than they really are. How insignificant are they? So insignificant that simply by telling me you will write a review, I would give you a copy for free. Quantify it: how was I damaged? If you lie to me just to get a free copy, how do I distinguish moral crime comitters from well-intentioned potential reviewers who never got around to it? How many of them should I pursue as thieves? What effect would that have on attracting reviewers? Stamping "MORAL CRIME DOER" on the forehead of people who have taken something weightless, incrementally cost-less, and that is marketed by giving it away to people is like turning jaywalking into a felony. The irony is that if copying my works was economically significant - if, say, I made an ERP system and a customer failed to pay maintenance fees - my recourse would be to sue them for the tort of not meeting a contractual obligation. The law already has a measure in place to prevent stupid cases: Is it worth suing over? If not, just move on.
- fennecfoxen 14y ago
  I am not a legal expert but I do believe that "theft of service" can apply to the likes of, say, "stealing" cable service, even if it doesn't reduce the capacity of others to enjoy their cable service. FWIW.
- tjr 14y ago
  How insignificant are they? So insignificant that simply by telling me you will write a review, I would give you a copy for free. I would agree with that. But if someone tells me, "I want a copy, but even though you are asking $5 per copy, I don't think it's worth anything at all. Give one to me for free." ... I would not be so quick to hand over a copy in that case, and, based on anecdotal conversations with others, I suspect that is closer to the mentality of a lot of folks who are committing the trivial crime of copyright infringement.
drcube 14y ago
"...as long as they’re going to steal it, we want them to steal ours" - Bill Gates [1] Yep, that's exactly what victims of theft feel. When my car was stolen last year, I thought "Well it could be worse, they could have stolen someone else's car". Because the more people steal my stuff, the more money I make, right? [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5162686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5162686
bjustin 14y ago
Equating a lesser crime (copyright infringement) with a greater crime (theft) diminishes the weight of the greater crime[1]. To use a ridiculous example, if you say that taking a picture of a statue is the same as stealing the statue, any accusations you make of theft will not be taken very seriously. [1] My basis for this claim is that taking $40 that I already have is worse than not giving me $40 for a license to software that I wrote.
cjwfnewkjrnew 14y ago
Theft is too strong a word, because nothing is taken away from the company who makes the product. The moral imperative here doesn't come from actual harm to an individual, it comes from the notion that someone should be rewarded for their hard work if others benefit from it. Which is much weaker. If someone copies something they would never have paid for otherwise, then there is very little harm done indeed. Don't get me wrong, I like the notion that it is morally right for people to be rewarded for their hard work if it benefits others. However, if we're going to enforce it, shouldn't we start by trying to stop the exploitation of poor people before we go all nuts over sob stories from software giants, record companies and movie studios?
qu4z-2 14y ago
I'm against piracy, but I can none-the-less see a clear distinction between copyright infringement and theft. > For the developer/distributor/publisher/artist or whomever is expecting a cut from sales the result is the same: they lost a part of their wage. I take issue with this particular argument. By that logic, not consuming is morally equivalent to theft. I'm sure some people would love that to be a common belief.

by TheCapn 14y ago

IgorPartola 14y ago

I do not advocate piracy, and do believe that people should be paid for their work. However, you are wrong. Theft means that the original owner no longer has the item stolen from them. Copying something from them most definitely leaves them with the original. That is one way in which piracy is not like theft. I would much rather someone download a copy of my code, than grab all my drives, make a copy, erase them, then return the drives. What you said is "theft is wrong" && "piracy is wrong" => "Piracy must be theft". The trouble is, you cannot apply the same concepts to physical and digital world. Once again, not arguing that pirating software or other content is good, just that it is not theft. Secondly, and this is a point that I don't think is discussed much, piracy to me is an effect of market value. For example big music labels will argue that if I distribute a Britney Spears MP3 on a file sharing network, that they lose $0.99 * # of potential buyers. This is false. The market value of this piece of content is much lower. People would not pay for it if the only way to get it was through, say, iTunes. Basically, someone might want it for free, might consider if for cheap ($0.10/song), but not want it for the price set by the market.

cavilling_elite 14y ago
The problem is the price is not set by the market, it is set by the record label and significant arm twisting. Support your favorite bands by sending them cheques if you obtain their album. The RIAA is the problem. Also check out Band Camp for new unsigned artists. Great service and IMHO the future of the "record" industry.
- mpyne 14y ago
  Band Camp is great! I don't care enough about music per se to use it for its intended purpose, but I do get pointed from time to time to some groups who remix video game music. There's some pretty talented musicians on there even in esoteric genres.
- IgorPartola 14y ago
  Honest question: how would you set the market value of a digital good? I have a very limited understanding of economics, but it seems to be that balancing the supply/demand equations when supply is infinite (for, say, a song, movie, music video, etc.) becomes rather difficult.
  - tjr 14y ago
    How would you set the market value of a physical copy of a digital good? Music CDs are sold for roughly $10-$20 USD. The actual cost of making the physical CD is around $1. People seem much more agreeable to accept a $9-$19 markup on a physical CD than on a digital album, which costs $0 to copy but ostensibly has the same cost to produce otherwise.
    - IgorPartola 14y ago
      Well, if there is scarcity (i.e.: supply is somehow limited), then the market value is where supply and demand curves cross. In other words, I'd throw a bunch of CD's into the market and let the price stabilize. That has nothing to do with how much it cost me to make it (the same way that the salary a doctor makes has nothing to do with how expensive the education was), but everything to do with opportunity cost: would I rather buy this CD or another. At least for spherical songs in vacuum. I cannot do the same thing with digital goods since the supply is unlimited. I don't see how the market can settle using the old supply/demand paradigm. I can try to get a stable price by offering a "pay what you think it's worth" model, but that' no fun either.

Zigurd 14y ago

Copyright infringement is very different from theft. First, if you copy one of my books, say from someone who bought it in pdf format from the O'Reilly site, you have not denied the owner access to his paid copy. You have not robbed anyone of a physical artifact with a measurable cost. Second, such as act doesn't even rise to the status of "theft of service." It isn't like sneaking into another movie theater after watching the show you paid for. You are not taking up a physical seat. At most you have committed a tort. The problem is these tiny torts have been criminalized. But that doesn't make them any more significant than they really are. How insignificant are they? So insignificant that simply by telling me you will write a review, I would give you a copy for free. Quantify it: how was I damaged? If you lie to me just to get a free copy, how do I distinguish moral crime comitters from well-intentioned potential reviewers who never got around to it? How many of them should I pursue as thieves? What effect would that have on attracting reviewers? Stamping "MORAL CRIME DOER" on the forehead of people who have taken something weightless, incrementally cost-less, and that is marketed by giving it away to people is like turning jaywalking into a felony. The irony is that if copying my works was economically significant - if, say, I made an ERP system and a customer failed to pay maintenance fees - my recourse would be to sue them for the tort of not meeting a contractual obligation. The law already has a measure in place to prevent stupid cases: Is it worth suing over? If not, just move on.

fennecfoxen 14y ago
I am not a legal expert but I do believe that "theft of service" can apply to the likes of, say, "stealing" cable service, even if it doesn't reduce the capacity of others to enjoy their cable service. FWIW.
tjr 14y ago
How insignificant are they? So insignificant that simply by telling me you will write a review, I would give you a copy for free. I would agree with that. But if someone tells me, "I want a copy, but even though you are asking $5 per copy, I don't think it's worth anything at all. Give one to me for free." ... I would not be so quick to hand over a copy in that case, and, based on anecdotal conversations with others, I suspect that is closer to the mentality of a lot of folks who are committing the trivial crime of copyright infringement.

drcube 14y ago

"...as long as they’re going to steal it, we want them to steal ours" - Bill Gates [1] Yep, that's exactly what victims of theft feel. When my car was stolen last year, I thought "Well it could be worse, they could have stolen someone else's car". Because the more people steal my stuff, the more money I make, right? [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5162686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5162686

bjustin 14y ago

Equating a lesser crime (copyright infringement) with a greater crime (theft) diminishes the weight of the greater crime[1]. To use a ridiculous example, if you say that taking a picture of a statue is the same as stealing the statue, any accusations you make of theft will not be taken very seriously. [1] My basis for this claim is that taking $40 that I already have is worse than not giving me $40 for a license to software that I wrote.

cjwfnewkjrnew 14y ago

Theft is too strong a word, because nothing is taken away from the company who makes the product. The moral imperative here doesn't come from actual harm to an individual, it comes from the notion that someone should be rewarded for their hard work if others benefit from it. Which is much weaker. If someone copies something they would never have paid for otherwise, then there is very little harm done indeed. Don't get me wrong, I like the notion that it is morally right for people to be rewarded for their hard work if it benefits others. However, if we're going to enforce it, shouldn't we start by trying to stop the exploitation of poor people before we go all nuts over sob stories from software giants, record companies and movie studios?

qu4z-2 14y ago

I'm against piracy, but I can none-the-less see a clear distinction between copyright infringement and theft. > For the developer/distributor/publisher/artist or whomever is expecting a cut from sales the result is the same: they lost a part of their wage. I take issue with this particular argument. By that logic, not consuming is morally equivalent to theft. I'm sure some people would love that to be a common belief.